Josh,

How right you are.

As an agency we have clients talking about wanting to do some Web 2.0 marketing. They don't know what they mean.

Web 2.0 is just a label for the internet technologies that have been developed and that thrive in the changing landscape on the internet. That landscape is one of active user particpation and content generation.

In the office we were discussing what was and what was not a Web 2.0 technology. This led us into a whole debate about how the term has been abused and misused so much that it really has lost its meaning.

Leave aside whether these are Web 2.0 or not, blogging is an activity, widgets is a descriptive term to define clever desktop applications and Facebook and You Tube are just websites. I even had a client recently send us a brief that asked for their design to be Web 2.0 - by that they meant that they wanted it to look like the Vista or MacOS interface.

My point, almost talking about the elusive Web 2.0 should automatically exclude anyone from discussing online marketing strategy with a client.

What's most important the media or the message?

For me it's neither, its the result.

Michael

That's why I'm positioning my company to be a web 2.1 company.

;)

Patrick -- Excellent strategy! lol...

Josh -- Another overused & meaningless buzzword I hate, sometimes used in connection with Web 2.0: "Break through the clutter."

OK -- it's a phrase. But still.

Josh:

Thanks for reaching out to us and helping to create a community of people who are tired of seeing the overuse of the term "Web 2.0"

This consumer-centric focus is indeed changing the conversation, allowing a whole new group of buzzwords to enter the conversation. Saying "Web 2.0"-- or the shorter, hipper "2.0" is indeed an easy pathway towards making you or your company look modern and forward-thinking without actually having to do something about it.

Josh,
I agree that "Web 2.0" is often mis/over-used. It's more of an interactive movement instead of a new version, as the name implies.
--John

As someone who works for a B2B company NOT focused on Web 2.0, I'm glad to hear that Web 2.0 is an overused term. However, with so much being written about these type of companies, I often find that reporters tend to ignore me because we're not "hip" - aka Web 2.0 - enough.

I predict that the next catchphrase will be Web 2.0 bubble or - as I like to say - Web 2.0 Exuberance. In fact, New York Times wrote on this yesterday.

Can I just get some love for B2B company with actual revenues, customers and business model? =)

"Web 2.0" is probably used too much and incorrectly but it does have meaning:

1. There is stakeholder involvement. That is, people contribute and interact. It is not a one-way conversation and there is a minimum of command and control.

2. Ajax is involved, probably: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_%28programming%29

3. You have to the potential to achieve synergy where the sum of the contributions creates a greater whole (e.g., Wikipedia or Marketing Profs).

When I think of Web 2.0, I think of John Locke and Adam Smith.

Cece, I don't personally have involvement in a "Web 2.0" company myself and I agree that it is an overused term.

There are, however, people out there making good money with it so it is not really fair to suggest they don't have revenues or customers.

You kind of implying this is like the dot-com boom and bust. No question the dot-come boom was "irrational exuberance" but it was more for over reaching and exploring uncharted territory. It went too far.

But the truth is there are now lots of people making good money using Web 1.0. :-)

great stuff. Here's the REAL reality: buzzwords have been abused since the dawn of time. I mean the dawn of marketers.

Web 2.0 is just the latest. Terms are needed to define and, sure, concepts are needed to engage and excite.

We just need to balance. It's really quite easy for any pro worth half his weight to see when co's are compensating by using it and, when companies have a real value proposition.

This just in: The Web 2.0 Summit is in full stride in San Francisco.

CK is exactly right: We don't throw words, phrases or even cliches out as long as they hold meaning for people. Obviously, web 2.0 means something to lots of people or we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it needs further definition or clarification, that, too, will happen.

Josh,

On the other hand (always need a counter point), you are correct. Simply adding Web 2.0 to our messaging does not differentiate us or make us special. But adding success stories re Web 2.0 just might.

Since when is the term "Web 2.0" a "recent" buzzword? I think the term was coined in 2004 or so and the business side has had its own blog - techcrunch.com - since 2005. It's even been called a buzzword since then. Here's a 2005 essay by the person that coined the term on what Web 2.0 really means (or meant): http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1

Thanks for reaching out to us and helping to create a community of people who are tired of seeing the overuse of the term "Web 2.0"

WebSherpa:

Web 2.0 is not really new, it's just been picked up quite a bit from the PR folks.

Patrick:

I compared Web 2.0, 2.1 and 3.0 a little bit back:

http://hyku.com/blog/archives/000786.html

Well, I started telling people that we do Web 2.0.1.92-build-2321-rc3 and they absolutely loved it because we specifically tell them which build we are working with and whether it's a release candidate or not - so no surprises.